9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notes to the customers and to that extent, the amount was being deducted from the total assessable value. Just because the quantity discount was not being mentioned in the individual invoices during the month, the same could not be denied, requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, interests and penalty is waived, stay applications are allowed - E/1629-1630/2010 - 629-630/2011-EX(PB), - Dated:- 8-6-2011 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Shri K.J. Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Monica Batra, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. The appellants are manufacturers of Asbestos products containing fly ash not less then 25% by weight of the product. The goods manufactured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoice, at the end of the month, the total sales of various buyers were determined, on that basis, the discounts available to them were determined and for the quantum of discount, the credit notes were issued. Since the appellant were paying duty in monthly instalments payable by the 5th of the next month, to the extent the credit notes were issued to the customers, the assessable value for calculation of the duty was reduced and the duty was paid on that basis. 1.1 The department issued two show cause notices dated 20-3-2008 and dated 25-7-2008 to the appellant alleging that they have short paid duty amounting to Rs. 24,49,363/- and Rs. 22,19,715/- respectively during the period from 1-3-2007 to 31-7-2007 and from 1-8-2007 to 31-3-2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of the stay applications. 2.1 Shri K.J. Singh, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the appellant have correctly discharged the duty liability in respect of the goods sold by them, that it is not the allegation of the department that Quality Discount and Cash Discount/Prompt Cash Discount were not actually passed on to the buyers, that the appellant vide their letter dated 6-3-2007 addressed to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner had informed him that they were allowing Quantity discount to their customers on the basis of the quantity lifted by them during a month, that the discount was well known to the dealers before sale of the goods as per their declared policy, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals). 3. We have carefully considered submissions from both the sides and perused the records. On going through the show cause notices and also order-in-original and order-in-appeal, we find that it is not the allegation of the department that the Cash Discount/Prompt Cash Discount and Quantity Discount; which were claimed by the appellant, have not been passed on by them to their buyers. We also find that the entire discounts policy had been disclosed by the appellant to the department and besides this, the appellant initially had also sought permission for provisional assessment as they were not in position to determine the quantum of Quantity Discount at the time of the clearance of individual consignment and the department had i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
